AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SWEENEY
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. SWEENEY:
At the end of the bill (before the short title), insert the following new
section:
SEC. ll. None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to pay the
salaries
or expenses of personnel to inspect horses under section 3 of the Federal
Meat Inspection
Act (21 U.S.C. 603) or under the guidelines issued under section 903 the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 1901 note;
Public Law 104-127).

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment and any amendment thereto be limited to 30 minutes to be equally
divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the opponent.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.
Chairman, several weeks ago we passed on the floor here an amendment banning
the slaughter of wild horses that had been sneaked into the omnibus bill by
a substantial bipartisan vote. This amendment I offer today is a supplement
to that amendment, and one that we have sought a vote on, an up-or-down
vote, for several years in this body. For that reason in particular, I want
to thank the subcommittee chairman for affording us this opportunity.

The amendment essentially would end the use of taxpayer dollars to enable
and subsidize foreign enterprises, largely operating in opposition to the
vast opinion and support of United States citizens, and in fact the majority
of States have outlawed the slaughter of horses for human consumption; and
yet this process continues on. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of
misinformation spread about this issue. The opposition will say this
amendment will lead to an increase in the abuse of horses, or horses running
wild in our streets. Such statements are not true, and I want to offer some
facts.

First of all, each year 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for
human consumption in Europe and in Asia, not here, where they are sold as a
delicacy.
Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter. Misstatement
number one, that slaughter is the same as humane euthanasia, it is not, Mr.
Chairman. Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a
veterinarian. Euthanasia of horses is administered by lethal injection,
whereas slaughter is administered by unskilled, untrained workers using the
captive bolt. Many times this is administered improperly, causing
unnecessary pain and suffering before death, and that is after these horses
have been transported in excess of 1,000 miles in the most inhumane
conditions perceived.

Misstatement number two, that if this legislation is successful, we will
cause an overpopulation of horses. Passage of this amendment will not cause
an overpopulation of horses, since each year the numbers are this, about
690,000 horses die in the U.S., many of which are euthanized by licensed
veterinarians.

Slaughter represents only 1 percent of the horses that die each year, and
this would not result in overpopulation of horses as some have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply this: Americans do not profit from slaughtering
horses. Horses are not bred in the United States for that purpose. This is
an export-driven market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies
make money off the sale of the meat. This amendment simply says that the use
of American taxpayer dollars to pay for the salaries and the work of USDA
inspectors ought to stop, and those resources ought to be
committed to making sure the food supply and the food chain here in this
country are fully protected.

Let us stop this practice, a practice that flies in the face of generations
of precedent here in Congress and strong opposition by the American public.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this amendment, and
yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from New York (Mr.
SWEENEY), for whom I have a great deal of respect, has worked on this issue
for some time. I know he also has a separate legislating bill that he is
trying to move through the process, where this issue and this whole topic
could be more appropriately addressed through the authorizing committee.

This amendment will shut down an industry without having a hearing, or any
due process. The amendment creates a crisis for animal health issues. It
prohibits USDA from inspecting horses that may have West Nile virus, or
vesicular stomatitis, both of which can affect other animals and humans if
those horses are destined for slaughter.

The estimated cost to feed and care for 50,000 horses is at least 60 to $100
million per year. Who will pay, or will more horses go to the rendering
plant instead? What is the real effect of this measure? There is no way of
knowing, because it has not been vetted through the process.

Demand for the product will not change. Almost all of the meat from the U.S.
is exported, and those countries will simply find another source. I oppose
this amendment very strongly.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the chairman of
the authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE).

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment.
This amendment is a piece of legislation that has been introduced by Members
of the House that would ban horse slaughter in the country. And, quite
frankly, this legislation has been opposed by me and many others, but it is
also a fact that this particular amendment is far worse than the legislation
that the gentleman has offered for this reason: the principal concern stated
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. SWEENEY) is that the manner of the
transport and the actual slaughter of these horses is inhumane.
But this amendment would simply limit the inspection of the horses for the
purpose of slaughter; does not in any way stop what his other legislation at
least attempts to do, that is, the transport of the horses to Canada, Mexico
or anywhere else for the purpose of slaughter. The effect of that then is
that the inhumane transport and the slaughter itself continue, but the
horses are transported far greater distances.

Now, the gentleman makes reference to the fact that this is only 1 percent
of the horses that die each year. And he cites 65,000 as a figure. But I
would suggest to the gentleman that he is way, way, way off on his numbers,
because there are not 65,000 times 100 or 612 million horses dying each year
in this country.

With the average life expectancy of a horse of more than 25 years, that
would mean that we have more than 150 million horses in the United States.
We do not have anywhere near that number. So this percentage is a far higher
percentage.

That gives rise to the concern raised by the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
BONILLA) and many others that you are going to have hundreds of thousands of
unwanted horses,  perhaps at the rate of as many as 50,000 a year according
to the American Veterinary Medical Association.

At a cost of $2,000 per horse to take care of them, that is a hundred
million dollars times the average life expectancy that would remain in the
lives of these horses if they were not sent to slaughter. If that average is
10 years, you are talking about a billion dollars after
you get 10 years out from now in terms of having to support and take care of
these horses.

Now, the gentleman says no problem with that, but the evidence is pretty
sparse that there will not be any problem with that because no country
anywhere ever, ever has banned the slaughter of horses. That is what his
amendment would accomplish.

So I suggest that that is a very, very bad idea with far-reaching
complications. I am not by any means alone in this concern. More than 60
reputable horse organizations, animal health organizations, and agricultural
organizations have banded together to oppose this amendment, and they are
some of the most respected people who own horses and take care of horses in
the United States. The American Quarter Horse Association, the largest
association of horse owners in the world, strongly opposes this amendment.
The  American Painted Horse Association, the second largest association of
horse owners, opposes this amendment. More than a dozen State horse
councils, including the New York State Horse Council and the Virginia State
Horse Council, oppose the gentleman’s legislation.

It is also opposed by those who take care of the health of our horses, very
respected organizations like the American Veterinarian Medical Association,
the American Association of Equine Practitioners. More than 7,000 horse
doctors, the people who take care of horses themselves, are concerned about
the implications of what this amendment will have if it is allowed to go
into effect and ban the slaughter of horses.

Now, I do not believe anybody in this room eats horses. What this is about
is what is the best approach for the humane treatment of horses, and the
American Veterinarian Medical Association and the American Association of
Equine Practitioners recognize the method by which horses are slaughtered in
the United States as a humane method of euthanasia of disposing of horses.

So the bill does not prohibit other means of deposition of horses. If people
still want to put down their horse by some other means, it does not stop
them from doing that. It will simply stop the proper inspection of these
horses, which, as the gentleman from Texas correctly notes, will deprive us
of a lot of useful information that will be gathered by those veterinarians
about diseases and so on that will confront these horses if indeed they do
not get properly inspected and they have  serious diseases.

Other organizations that oppose this: The American Farm Bureau opposes this
legislation. The American Meat Institute opposes this legislation. The
Equine Nutrition and Physiology Society opposes this legislation. The Animal
Welfare Council opposes this legislation. The National Horse Show Commission
opposes this legislation. Organizations that represent literally millions of
horse owners in this country and elsewhere around the world oppose this
legislation because of their concern, not about whether somebody is eating
horses or not but whether or not these horses will be treated humanely if
they are not allowed to go through the process they go through today.

So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. It is not in the best
interest of America’s horses, it is not in the best interest of America’s
horse owners, and it is not in the best interest of the fiscal concerns that
we must have if we are confronted down the road with the possibility of
having to take care of these many, many horses.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.
Chairman, let me quickly respond to some of the information that has been
put out there.

First of all, on the cost end of it, CBO said already this is a cost-neutral
proposition. In fact, it is my contention that it will give the USDA extra
resources to do the job of protecting the American food chain.

Secondly, we talked about the failure of a lack of a hearing. We looked for
a hearing for 2 years. That necessitated bringing this legislation. Finally,
if we are simply going to get into a debate over which organizations support
it, there are vastly more organizations, some of the most preeminent experts
in the horse industry who support this legislation, including Congress’s top
veterinarian, Senator ENSIGN, who is introducing a counterpart bill in the
Senate. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina
(Mr. SPRATT).

Mr. SPRATT. Mr. Chairman, first question, what is the effect of this
amendment?

This amendment in simple terms will stop the slaughter or human consumption
of horses, the meat of which will be exported to foreign countries. It does
not stop, affect or any  way impede euthanasia by veterinarians. It stops
the brutal slaughter at slaughterhouses.

Sometimes horses are jacked up by their hind legs and have their throats
slit. This is the kind of slaughter that this bill will prohibit so that the
meat can be exported to Europe and other places. Secondly, who is affected?
Slaughterhouses in two States. That is it. Three different slaughterhouse
locations in two States. That is it. Those are the net effects because, you
see, Americans do not eat horse meat.

These horses are not slaughtered in this country, 65,000 last year, for
consumption here. They are slaughtered for consumption in Europe and Asia,
and 35,000 were not trucked to Mexico and Canada only to be euthanized
there. They were shipped there to be slaughtered. So this affects foreign
consumers of American horse meat. That is all. No Americans are affected,
and only three plants in two States are actually affected.

Who is for it and who is against it? I will leave this 7-page memorandum
which shows individuals, organizations, horse raisers, horse racers, horse
farmers, horse lovers of all kinds who support it, including a substantial
number of veterinarians. Seven pages long, that is how many people are in
favor of it.

Next question: What do we know about the consequences of this? What happens
when you stop the slaughter of horses at, albeit, just three plants?

Well, we know from practical experience in five States, including
California, the largest State for the last 7 years, this law has been in
effect Statewide in California and four other States and in California since
1998. What has been the effect? Have there been horses that have been left
for neglect, derelict horses? No, there have been no effects. Have there
been horses that have been too numerous to be euthanized? No. Practically,
in the five
States that have implemented this law, there has been no effect whatsoever.
Finally, what is the legislative history of this bill? The legislative
history is we filed a bill like this in the last Congress. We filed it again
in this Congress. In the last Congress, after we put on an effort to win
support for it, we collected 225 co-sponsors. We never had a hearing. We
were entitled to one.

So we come here today using a different parliamentary procedure. But this
bill has been thoroughly exposed, thoroughly supported, thoroughly argued
for and against; and today we are entitled to this vote on the House floor.
And if the 225 Members who have supported our bill in the past come forward,
we will see that the will of the House is that this becomes the law of the
land.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
KING).

Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time,
and I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this issue.

As I listen to this debate and I am listening to the points that are being
made by the other side, and, by the way, I rise in opposition to the Sweeney
amendment, one of the  questions that has not been answered here is what is
the distinction between a steer, a hog, and a horse? Why would we elevate
the horse to a level beyond that of another animal? Does it have a certain
intrinsic value that distinguishes it?

That is something that I would like to hear, but I think it is important for
the people who own horses to manage their horses.

Another question is, should horses be eaten? I have not really heard the
answer to that. I know they do that in other places of the world. I have
never eaten a horse. I had some zebra in Africa last year and, actually, it
was the best meat I had on the continent. I never felt the desire to eat a
horse, but they do that in other countries.

We have a horse herd that needs to be managed. Whatever that is, whether it
is a 1 percent, a 2 percent or a 10 percent of the herd that is slaughtered,
all of it does something that allows them to cull out the herd. It saves
those horses from disease and starvation. And if you have seen those horses
as I have in dry lot that were not taken care of, you do not want to turn
these horses over to the people who do not have the means to take care of
them.

But the U.S. horse herd should be managed. We should be humane with our
animals. We should treat them well and give them veterinarian treatment, and
those that do not fit into the plans need to be managed and taken care of
and euthanized.

Now there is also the address made that we are doing this for foreign
interests, that this is for the interests of foreign markets and foreign
palates. We have a balance of trade that is now a minus $617 billion a year.
What is wrong with marketing American products that help that, reduce the
deficit in the balance of trade? And, by the way, if it is the euros that
come from France, that is okay with me. I think that is a great way for us
to start to repair the balance of trade. Another thing we cannot do is set
up a species in this country that sets it up as a sacred species. American
horses cannot be turned into sacred cows by
the Sweeney amendment.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. SWEENEY) has 812 minutes
remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. BONILLA) has 6 minutes remaining.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr.
Chairman, let me quickly answer my good friend, the gentleman from Iowa (Mr.
KING) by saying 2 things. When Ferdinand, the great horse champion, was sold
for slaughter, he was marketed as ‘‘eating an American champion.’’ There is
a distinction there.

Number two, I would ask how many zebras, how many cows do we know the names
of? We know the names of many horses, and the fact is horses are not raised
in this Nation for human consumption.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
WHITFIELD).

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I want to commend the gentleman from South
Carolina (Mr. SPRATT) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. RAHALL) and
the gentleman from New York (Mr. SWEENEY) for bringing this amendment to the
floor.

I would point out that we hear a lot from the American Equine Veterinarian
Practitioners and the American Quarter Horse Association about their great
concern for these horses, and yet there are hundreds of organizations in the
country today who provide funding through their foundation to provide
retirement homes for unwanted horses. Yet I am not aware that the American
Equine Veterinarian Practitioners do that through a foundation, nor the
American Quarter Horse Association, nor do they do it through a foundation;
and they are the most prolific breeders of any breed in the country.

I will also say we are talking about two foreign-owned companies here, one
owned by a French family, one owned by a Belgium family. They are the only
ones slaughtering horses in America. In addition to that, the Attorney
General of Texas, who is now a U.S.
Senator, wrote a legal opinion while he was Attorney General stating that it
was illegal to slaughter horses in Texas. And yet, despite that, the
slaughterhouse brought a lawsuit, and that case is now pending in U.S.
District Court.

The Mayor of Kaufman, Texas, where one of plants is located, has written a
letter to us urging us to try to shut these plants down because of their
consistent violation of environmental laws. But one of the things that is
most difficult about this process is that, first of all, I think everyone
would agree horses have not been raised for slaughter. Unlike cows, pigs and
chickens, they have not been raised for slaughter.

When you take a cow, pig, chicken or whatever to an auction house you know
it is going to be slaughtered. But many people when they take a horse to an
auction are unaware because there is a lack of disclosure. In fact, there is
an effort made to conceal that self-described ‘‘killer buyers’’ are at the
auction house and they take the horses to slaughter.

Then the process of the captive penetrating bolt being administered by
lowskilled workers, low-paid workers who frequently have to do it two or
three times before the horse is stunned and then his throat is slit, I would
dare to say that is not humane. Now the leadership of the American Equine
Practitioners say that it is humane. But if you talk to individual
veterinarians, they would take controversy with that. For every page of
supporters opposing this legislation, we have pages of entities and
individuals and organizations that support this legislation. And I might add
a few of them that support it.
We have the owners of the last 12 Kentucky Derby winners supporting it. We
have the National Thoroughbred Racing Association supporting it. We have the
Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association supporting it. We have the New
York Racing Authority supporting it. We have Churchill Downs supporting it.
I could go on and on and on. But, most important, we have an inconsistent
policy in the U.S. Government today on this issue. We prohibit sending
horses out of America by sea for the purpose of slaughter, and yet we allow
them to be slaughtered in the United States. So it is an inconsistent
policy. There is a lack of disclosure at the auction house. And when
California banned horse slaughter, the only thing that they found was that,
one, horse theft went down and horse abuse and neglect did not go up.

With that, I would urge the support of the Sweeney amendment.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield for as much time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. GOODLATTE), chairman of the authorizing
committee.

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for the time. I want to
respond to a few of the remarks made by the gentleman from Kentucky and the
gentleman from New York.

First of all, he talked about an inconsistent policy because we do not allow
horses to be shipped overseas for slaughter purposes by boat. We do nothing
to stop that from being done with regard to transport to Canada or Mexico.
The fact of the matter is this amendment does not stop it. So when my
colleagues talk about the humane treatment of horses, this amendment is
going to result in more inhumane treatment of horses if that is their guide,
because they are going to be shipped greater distances to Canada and Mexico
because they cannot be sent to slaughter facilities in the U.S.

Second, the gentleman from New York makes reference to the great racehorse
Ferdinand, like this amendment would have stopped Ferdinand from having gone
to slaughter. It absolutely would not have. I did not like seeing Ferdinand
go to slaughter, but Ferdinand was sold to a Japanese owner and exported not
for slaughter purposes but for breeding purposes; and later on in Japan, he
was slaughtered. This amendment will do absolutely nothing to stop that same
situation from happening to any other racehorse in the world.

Thirdly, the gentleman makes references to just three slaughter facilities.
That is not true either. There are other slaughter facilities for horses.
For example, there is a  slaughterhouse in Nebraska which solely slaughters
horses for zoos and sanctuaries for big cats which would be essentially shut
down by this amendment because horses provide the proper type of high
protein diet for those animals, when they are not out racing across the
savannahs, because beef simply is not good for cats, these large cats.

The gentleman from New York says it is budget neutral, but the fact of the
matter is all he is talking about there is budget neutral in terms of this
particular amendment not costing any money; but consequences of the
amendment will cost a lot of money because this amendment does absolutely
nothing to stop the many practices that occur in this country that create
unwanted horses, everything from nurse mares in the thoroughbred racing
industry, to Premarin mares to produce the drug Premarin, to the foals of
those mares, to the fact that for every Smarty Jones that is created, there
are hundreds and hundreds of unwanted racehorses who do not make the grade
and other horses that are unsuitable for riding and other pleasure purposes
or showing. Those horses, as well, will fall into that category of unwanted
horses.

Nor does the amendment do anything to take care of all those unwanted horses
as they start to accumulate in our society. We have already talked about the
massive estimated costs that will take place as a result of that. Finally,
the gentleman from Kentucky talks about the facilities that exist that would
take care of horses, and we have some of those facilities in the country
today. This amendment does not establish standards of care that horse rescue
facilities must meet. The humane society of the United States, which
supports the amendment, admits that equine shelters are less
well-established than cat and dog shelters.  Citing extreme costs and staff
time needed to shelter horses, the humane society warned of needing to be
aware of distinctions between sheltering horses and sheltering other
companion animals. Current horse-rescue facilities are overwhelmed with the
amount of horses they already care for without this amendment being in
effect and are in desperate search of additional funding.

The American Association of Equine Practitioners estimated that in the first
year alone of a slaughter ban 2,700 additional equine facilities would be
needed to keep up with unwanted horses displaced by the ban, compounding the
problem by adding additional facilities that will also be searching for
additional funding.

This is a bad, bad idea. I know there is a lot of emotion that says this is
a great thing to do. It is not and it is not in the best interests of the
horses of this country to pass this amendment. I urge my colleagues to
oppose it.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I just
simply  say, before I recognize, that the gentleman raises some interesting
points; and I would hope that the authorizing committee could go to hearings
in the near future.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. MORAN).

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friends, the gentleman from
New York (Mr. SWEENEY); the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT); and
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. WHITFIELD).

What has become of us as a country, selling these horses off for horse meat
to be eaten on the other side of our oceans?

The wild horse is an icon of American history. The gentleman from Iowa asked
what is the difference between a horse and a steer and a hog? The horse is
an icon along with the bald eagle. What is the difference between a bald
eagle and a pigeon or a turkey? And if you do not know the difference, we
cannot explain it to you.

Shakespeare once said that ‘‘Horses are as full of spirit as the month of
May and as gorgeous as the sun in midsummer’’. Does everything have to be
converted to the bottom line? There are so many alternatives to slaughtering
these beautiful creatures that are on public lands. We used to have 1
million at the turn of the century. We are down to 35,000 wild horses on
public lands. That is sad and wrong. We have responsibility over these
beautiful creatures. They ought not be cut up in such an inhumane way, and
shipped overseas for people who want to eat horse meat. That is not what we
are about as a country. There are so many other alternatives.

We can use animal contraception methods. We could reopen over 100 herd
management areas that the Bureau of Land Management has closed. We could
start centers such as the one I saw this weekend, 61 horses brought from the
wild West for adoption. They came from Nevada and Wyoming and California,
beautiful creatures. People in the east coast are adopting them. There are
so many things we could be doing rather than selling these beautiful
creatures for horse meat. We are not just about dollars and cents. We are
about the things that made our country great. The wild horse is one of those
things. It inspires poetry; and if my colleagues do not understand that, I
guess we can’t very well communicate why this is so important to us. But I
trust the majority of this Congress knows what we are talking about.

Mr. BONILLA. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Before
I recognize my final speaker to close, Mr. Chairman, let me just point out
if it is about the bottom line, it is about making sure USDA inspectors
inspect the American food chain and not foreign food chains.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. RAHALL).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New York for yielding
me time, and I appreciate his leadership, as well as the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. WHITFIELD) and the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. SPRATT).

I want to remind my colleagues that this particular amendment, which is a
funding limitation, however, is still very similar to an amendment that the
House voted on shortly before we broke before the Memorial Day district work
period. That particular amendment passed in an overwhelming fashion and in a
bipartisan fashion. So this is truly bipartisan when it comes to recognizing
how valuable the horse is to this country and what a symbol it is of our
freedom and how important it is to recognize this truly American icon.

When Americans think of the horse, I do not believe they think of it in
terms of foreign cuisine on the tables of countries around the European
area.

This amendment has invoked a lot of emotion and misinformation. The
opposition has said that this will increase the abuse of horses and horses
running wild out West. Such statements are not true. Here are the facts.
Each year some 65,000 horses are slaughtered in this country for human
consumption in Europe and Asia where they are sold in restaurants as a
delicacy. Another 30,000 are trucked to Canada and Mexico for slaughter.
This amendment will end that slaughter of American horses for human
consumption overseas.

Slaughter is not the same as humane euthanasia administered by a
veterinarian in a very controlled environment. Euthanasia of horses is
administered by legal injection, whereas slaughtered is administered by
unskilled, untrained workers using the captive bolt. Many times this is
administered improperly, causing unnecessary pain and suffering before
death.

Passage of this amendment will not cause an overpopulation of horses. Each
year 690,000 horses die in the U.S. many of which are euthanized by a
licensed veterinarian. Slaughtered  horses represent only 1 percent of
horses that die each year. This would not result in an overpopulation of
horses as some suggest. There are alternatives available.
Americans do not profit from slaughtering horses. This is an export-driven
market. Foreigners eat our horses and foreign companies make money, and we
should stop looking at it in that perspective and start looking at it in the
American perspective.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
New York (Mr. SWEENEY). The question was taken; and the Chairman announced
that the ayes appeared to have it.

Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. SWEENEY) will be
postponed.